[bamboo]

Thank you Hengest,

I enjoyed reading the politics behind this.

cheers,

bamboo

[Tease T Tickle]

It's interesting you mentioned the similarity to Knights Templar, Hengest. Throughout my years I've done quite a number of studies into the Crusade era and found a keen interest in the Templars.

Of course, all of this study more or less focuses on battles they were involved in, their political and econonmic activity, etc. I'm interested in getting to know the knights themselves.

Originally, the knights would have been brought from all over Europe as the order was attached to the Church and not to a nation, correct? But, eventually, the order ended up with a dominating presence in France, unless I'm mistaken.

So, with your knowledge of European styles and of course history, how do you think the Templars would have trained? Specifically, were they eclectic reflecting their widespread base or did they adopt a particular training method as set by the higher-ups? Do their methods have a modern relative, or is it too far gone? Of course, any other nuggets of wisdom are welcome.

[Hengest]

Sorry I haven't answered sooner Des, had a hectic weekend. Superb question, by the way!

For those who don't know, the Knights Templar were Europe's answer to the sohei of Japan or the Shaolin monks of China. Their full title being The Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon, they were founded at the end of the First Crusade by a knight by the name of Hugues de Payens. It was his vision to create a monastic order dedicated to the protection of Christian pilgrims in the Holy Land. However, for the first nine years of its existence, the Templars only consisted of de Payens and the eight knights who joined him originally and the order was on the brink of being dissolved for lack of membership. However, with the help of Bernard of Clairvaux, the Templars eventually began to flourish to become one of the most feared and respected fighting forces in the mediaeval era, spanning from Jerusalem to Scotland, and amassing unimaginable wealth and power in the process. In fact, we owe the modern system of banking to the Templars' invention. As Des rightly said, they were annexed to the Church rather than a single state, although they were at the most powerful in France. However, they eventually became too powerful and in 1307, key French knights in the order were arrested, tried and executed for heresy by King Phillip IV of France, bringing about open season on all Templars, effectively bringing their legacy to an end.

While a fair amount of information is available concerning the Templars history and structure, their training methods were never well documented and, as a result, it's largely a matter of guesswork. The knights of the order probably would've had fairly eclectic training backgrounds since they were of noble birth and would have received training in the martial arts from a very young age in their respective households. Any training they did as a group would probably have been in drilling battle formations and the like rather than learning combative techniques, which they would already be familiar with.

However, the knight, while forming the backbone of the Templars, was not its only warrior. The ranks were also made up of "sergeant brothers" and "turcopoles", both of who would've been of ignoble birth and may well have received training in combat within the order itself.

A sergeant brother was a mounted warrior, much like the knight, the only difference being the benefits he received from the order and his social status. He would probably have received training in the use of the broadsword as well as the all-important lance.

The turcopole was a local soldier, probably little more than a mercenary, who would most likely have been drilled in the techniques of the bill and, of course, the sword.

The actual techniques these men would've learnt is not known for sure, but some external evidence exists to give us a clue. As far as sword training, the manuscript known as the Tower Fechtbuch, or simply I.33, gives us some insight. While not a specifically Templar document, this is the earliest known European sword manual in existence, dating to about 1280, and shows techniques with sword and buckler that could well have been the kind of thing taught within Templar ranks. An electronic copy of I.33 can be found at http://freywild.ch/i33/i33en.html

To my knowledge, there are no styles of martial art today that claim a link to Templar techniques. That said, it's possible that those groups currently resurrecting the European schools of mediaeval and Rennaissance combat are unwittingly learning techniques that were practiced or descended from those practiced by the Templars, particularly those studying English and German manuals where the use of the broadsword enjoyed continued popularity, despite the fashion for the rapier in other parts of Europe.

[Wilhelm von Wankenstein]

...English and German manuals where the use of the broadsword enjoyed continued popularity, despite the fashion for the rapier in other parts of Europe.

Long live ye olde bigge arse sword! T3h rapier is t3h g4y

[bamboo]

Hengest,

With many of North America's indiginous nations having a very war like tradition (both offensive and defensive), why do you think that most of thier martial traditions seem to have been either lost or ignored?

-bamboo

[Hengest]

With many of North America's indiginous nations having a very war like tradition (both offensive and defensive), why do you think that most of thier martial traditions seem to have been either lost or ignored?

I think it's down to a few factors really mate. The first thing you have to remember is how much the Native American population was damaged by the coming of whitey. First and foremost, there were the diseases that they brought with them that the natives didn't have the immune systems to combat. One estimate says that this factor alone wiped out as much as 80% of the native population. Of course on top of that there's the battles that followed and horrific events like Wounded Knee, which almost removed entire nations from the face of the earth. With all this happening, the impact on the Native Americans must have been simply massive, and it's easy to see how a great deal of knowledge and learning, martial and otherwise, would've been lost as a result.

Another issue is that most nations had no system of written record keeping. Knowledge was passed down, but everything, from religion to tribal history to combat technique, was an oral tradition. If the bloke with the know-how died of smallpox, everybody had to start over. In Europe, where the resurrection of long-dead martial arts is going through somewhat of a boom, even though there are no teachers of these styles alive anymore, it can still be done since most Western European nations were meticulous record keepers, and numerous highly detailed manuals have been found illustrating the techniques that were practiced. A Native American martial artist wishing to do the same with his nation's fighting arts faces a much, much harder task since the written materials just aren't available.

Another possible reason is that the warriors of many Native American nations quite happily accepted the gun and put it to good use. Any culture that has been through the same thing is bound to see a gradual erosion of its hand-to-hand arts. It's not that they are no longer necessary, but certainly no longer as necessary. The same thing happened with the European nations. In contrast, the Maori of New Zealand were seemingly less agreeable to the use of firearms in their conflicts with the Red Coats and, as a result, the practice of their martial skills, rau makau, still exists today (as anyone who's seen Once Were Warriors can attest!). The Japanese also. Granted they happily adopted the harquebus from a very early stage, but this was a weapon so cumbersome, so inaccurate, and so ridiculously user-unfriendly that you still needed good hand-to-hand skills to be of any worth on the battlefield. And they didn't change this weapon until the Meiji Restoration some 300 years later.

So with all this, in my mind, you've got a recipe for lost martial arts. In my time, I've only ever come across one authentic Native American art still being practiced and that's an Inuit wrestling style called una tar tuq. Like Celtic styles, there's been a few attempts to create styles "in the spirit" of Native American culture, two of the most popular being Inikte and Tushka-homa (aka Red Warrior). Inikte, as far as I can tell, is actually a synthesis of Asian systems. Tushka-homa, on the other hand, while the work of an 8th degree black belt in American kenpo (Adrian Roman) does not simply seem to be Native American kenpo. I've heard good reports of this system and that it has a very un-Asian feel to it. It's therefore a shame that Mr. Roman blows all credibility by selling black-belt correspondance courses in his system for $1,000 a time...

[Wilhelm von Wankenstein]

I'm just having fun reading this thread right now, but here's my next question written in the midst of fevered delirium... wheeee!!!

With regard to massed infantry formations employing shield and sword (or any other weapon, for that matter), assuming right-handers predominated in the population as they do today, would the formation have been arranged with a common sword-side and shield-side, or would the markers at the extreme sword-hand side of the formation (assuming an oblong formation for simplicity's sake) have switched their sword and shield hands? This small detail seems to be taken for granted by everyone, but in fact, if the sword-side markers used the same hands to employ sword and shield as all their mates, it would imply an asymmetrical formation. While not necessarily a bad thing, it would mean that things were possible on one side that weren't possible on the other and an enemy might be able to exploit this. Again, I speak of course of basic formations.

[Tease T Tickle]

I don't mean to overload you, Hengest, so please take your time and don't bother apologizing for making me wait; I'm always willing to wait for quality.

Why were certain weapons more popular than others? For example, all over Europe we have swordsmen and sword fighting styles - whether it be rapier swashbuckling or two-hander brutality - but we don't see as much popularity or systematic training in weapons like the battle axe or flail. Of course, other weapons were used plenty, especially lances and bows, I don't mean to give that impression. All I'm curious about is why we have well defined systems for swordsmanship but not for hammersmanship or axemanship, for example.

Or, am I totally off base and the popularity of the sword if modern, thus causing the real history to be ignored? If such is the case, are there any resources for systems using axes, because I want some.

Thanks for the great thread and cheers mate.

[Hengest]

With regard to massed infantry formations employing shield and sword... would the formation have been arranged with a common sword-side and shield-side, or would the markers at the extreme sword-hand side of the formation... have switched their sword and shield hands?

Well Hamm, I have yet to come across a culture that employed basic shield formations that required the weapon-side troopers to change hands. With the bias against and subsequent "re-education" of left-handers found in the majority of cultures the world over, I think it's fairly safe to assume that almost all warriors would've been righties. Therefore, asking the line on the end to fight left-handed would've compromised their fighting skills I would imagine.

You raise a good point, but I don't know if the weapon-side would've been that much weaker than the shield side to be honest. Formation would obviously have been pretty tightly packed, but I don't think it would've been so restrictive as to prevent the weapon-side from being able to turn into an attack from the side. It would require a little more maneuvering than on the shield-side, but I don't think a great deal more.

I believe, as you say, you do occassionally find it in more advanced, defensively minded formations. The one that springs to mind is the Roman testudo, or "tortoise". I think I'm right in saying that those on the sword-side were required to change shield hand.

[Hengest]

Why were certain weapons more popular than others? For example, all over Europe we have swordsmen and sword fighting styles... but we don't see as much popularity or systematic training in weapons like the battle axe or flail.

Glad you like the thread Des. I'm just enjoying doing it. It's aiding my understanding of the subject matter, if no one else's!

The popularity of one weapon over another generally seems to be down to environment. From the geology of your region to the style of your opponent's armour to your society's fashion sense, all these and more seem to play a part. However, as you point out, the popularity of the sword is particularly interesting, purely because it was so widespread.

I think we first have to point out though that the sword as an object in itself was nowhere near as popular as weapons such as the spear or knife; it was perhaps the "cult of the sword" that was popular. This seems to stem from the fact that the sword, from earliest times to the most recent, has always been an expensive weapon to produce. Practically anyone could afford and make use of a spear, but a sword that was actually worth its weight in battle was a pricey piece of gear. It therefore followed that the only people who could afford a sword were going to be those of noble blood or the professional warriors who served them and this is why, I believe, the sword came to be associated with the warrior soul in so many cultures. The cannon fodder, for want of a better term, would've carried a spear or poleaxe and not much else. The professional warrior, the Japanese samurai, the Saxon huscarl, the Indian Sikh, would've fought with the best weapon money could buy: the sword.

And I think this is why we have a lot of sword systems. A foot soldier often had to hold down another job when he wasn't called up to fight, so he didn't have time to develop complex spear methods. A professional warrior has nothing else to do other than practice his martial skills and with the sword being the predominant weapon of this warrior class, that's the weapon that was practiced most. Of course, such a soldier may well have used other weapons but often this was down to personal taste and generally the knight using a morning star would've carried his sword as well. The Japanese tetsubo, or iron staff, is another good example. It is known that this was carried by a few particularly strong warriors, sometimes samurai but particularly sohei. However, it was not a weapon taught on the curriculum of a single ryuha; it was obviously a matter of devising a personal system.

This all said, systems for more unusual weapons have been found. There is a fifteenth century French manual on axe combat entitled Le Jeu de la Hache, while medieval and Rennaisance weapons masters weren't averse to teaching weapons other than sword. Liberi's, Talhoffer's and Meyer's works all have chapters on poleaxe combat. Talhoffer's also details techniques with a highly unusual weapon called the hackenschilde, a long two-handed shield that made use of offensive blades and spikes on its ends. However, these all appear to be exceptions that prove the rule.